I read through the thread and I see Grant hasn´t changed his MO. Make claims, offer no evidence to back up said claim, later in the thread claim he provided data and evidence when none was ever posted. And last, but not least, finally claim he won an argument when it was quite obvious he was used to mop the floor. I think the moderator at BABB put it best:

Grant wrote:Sorry,I have to retireGrant out

Indeed, you do.

As is my usual take when polite but essentially error-prone pseudoscientists come on this board, I have given Grant ample opportunities to actually engage in a conversation, to defend his claims, and to answer the rebuttals against them.

He has not done any of this. He has evaded questions, "answered" a handful of them with obfuscation or simple pleas to read his page (which does not answer the questions), or just ignored them. When asked to give an actual value for his force, he says we are not ready for it. When asked why Kepler´s laws work, he obfuscates again (for those keeping track at home, Kepler´s laws were derived through observation-- he was the one who figured out that orbits must be elliptical, and not circular, just through his amazingly meticulous tracking of the planets over time-- and it was Newton who later showed why Kepler´s laws were correct... and they are correct).

I have given Grant so many chances, more than I normally would for your average person, because I wanted people to know that ideas are not suppressed here, despite the claims made by a few. But in the end, people like Grant cannot obey the simple rules of this board, and there is a reason for it: their ideas and claims are not based in reality.

"It´s that simple. People like Grant, Wio, Vianova and others don´t use logic, reason, and critical thinking in their claims, but when they come here they are forced to use those methods. They can´t, and they wind up making outrageous claims, not defending their claims, avoiding direct questions, and in many cases resorting to insult or statements of "I´m right and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise". I give them a lot of rope here, and they almost always wind up using it.

That is what happens when pseudoscience is illuminated by the methods of real science. It withers and dies. We need to keep that light lit.

Grant was allowed to post his ideas freely, without editing, or any restrictions.

When people then started asking him to explain even the simplest of details, like "how did you make your observation" or "what´s the value of the repulsion constant" he twisted and turned and did everything possible to avoid answering (plus threw in a few insults along the way). I´m surprised he lasted as lopng as he did.

It´s his usual tactic, as we´ve seen so often here (and he´s not the only one who does it). He´s obviously got a very tenuous grasp of science and thinks he can make an Einstein-like breakthrough without doing any real hard work.

Unfortunately he picked a forum where people actually understand the science he´s trying to "improve on".

If you look at some of the other threads, especially in the "Against the mainstream" section, you´ll see plenty of others with equally outrageous or radical ideas posting freely. The difference is they´ve actually done some serious work on their teories and will answer questions.

BABB is one of the few places that people CAN present alternative ideas and have them discussed and analysed by people who understand science, without all the hassle of writing papers, peer review etc. In fact it´s exactly the opposite of a witch hunt!

--at least we get some fun with him over here----no-one could be that dumb or obstinate could they--

Some people don’t even have to pretend to be mean or scary on a Halloween-party either!

--by people who understand science,----where people actually understand the science--

yeah, rock my tax-paying... You mean we don’t have to do more research or experiments or bring out ideas, cause we have all the answers?

If someone want to believe in alternatives, let them do so. I find a lot of the New Age stuff hilarious, but I wouldn’t go out and nick-name them as stupid. I simply just don’t read their threads... or rather - post arguments against it. But I don´t have to put on this attitude "listen you bonehead..."

yeah, rock my tax-paying... You mean we don’t have to do more research or experiments or bring out ideas, cause we have all the answers?-----------------------------------------Well, you´re describing Grant´s attitude here. So I agree.

I do not know who this Grant is. Could you please fill us in on what the hubbub is all about?

Grant is a self proclaimed astrophyics expert.He posts all manner of gobble-de-gook yet provides no data to back it up or answers anyones questions.He also resorts to insults to anyone that questions him.....hence my gloves off attitude here.......he deserves it.

No doubt you will see him posting on GLP soon as on here he can also post as an AC to back himself up:)

If someone want to believe in alternatives, let them do so. I find a lot of the New Age stuff hilarious, but I wouldn’t go out and nick-name them as stupid. I simply just don’t read their threads... or rather - post arguments against it. But I don´t have to put on this attitude "listen you bonehead..."

That´s what I´m reacting to here.

You obviously have NO idea of how Grant treats people who question him?

"I agree that the more ideas/ideals put out in the open are good so that others can give input and/or advice on them."

No one has ever told Grant that we´re against him. People have simply asked him to explain his theories or provide some kind of supporting evidence. He then turns around and says it was already provided when all he did was make a claim and that was all. For instance, Grant has been claiming for almost a year now that the Earth is no longer orbiting the sun and in fact halted sometime around January/February of this year. He has provided NO evidence to support this theory and the simple fact that we can observe the sun move north and then south again as the seasons change proves that the Earth is NOT halted in orbit. What I find funny about most of Grant´s theories is the fact that they´re copies of Nancy´s. Nancy was the first to claim that the "Dark Twin" would smash into us back in June. Then Grant jumped on board and said the same thing. When Nancy said the transit of Venus in front of the sun wouldn´t occur, Grant said the same thing. But he went one step further and tried to claim that the exit point wasn´t where it was predicted, and therefore didn´t happen. But Grant was proven wrong on that. Nancy was also the first to bring up the "halted in orbit" BS and then Grant jumped on board with the same thing.

(Grant is) a self proclaimed astrophyics expert.He posts all manner of gobble-de-gook yet provides no data to back it up or answers anyones questions.He also resorts to insults to anyone that questions him....

1) Make a claim.2) Provide no supporting evidence.3) When asked for evidence, claim it was already provided and no one understands it.4) When refuting evidence is posted, ignore it.5) When technical questions are asked, ignore them.6) When someone says they don´t believe the claim, call them a "debunker" or "dis-info agent."7) If proven wrong, claim victory and run away.8) If a prediction is made and it fails, claim it was a "white lie" to protect the common man.

The BABBlers of Bad Astronomy are more Ptolemaic than one might imagine. In fact if it wasn´t for Halley and Newton, BABBlers would have maintained that Claudius Ptolemy´s assertions were true science and insisted The Almagest was sacred. This is the type of arrogance of BABBlers.

Grant will probably morph into Bad Astronomy´s nightmare after he managed to extrapolate their dirty little secrets which Bad Astronomy Uniformitarians borrowed from the blind assertions of Hutton and Lyell.

Strange how BABBlers accuse Grant of practising the very thing they do. Mmmmmm?